light_rainLight Rain and Windy, 52.0°

Andrew Applegarth

Comment history

Adeas (Andrew Applegarth) says...

"By the way "dint" is not a word."

You might want to check a dictionary Dorothy... It's not the proper word for that sentence (as I'm sure he meant "didn't"), but it is a word.

On Letter to the editor: Tearing safety net

Posted 10 November 2017, 3:48 p.m. Suggest removal

Adeas (Andrew Applegarth) says...

And thus Dorothy Hoyt-Reed unequivocally declares that abortion is murder.

Adeas (Andrew Applegarth) says...

I notice how you never just say propaganda. You always have to specify 'GOP controlled propaganda' to distinguish them from your propaganda, such as CNN and MSNBC to name two...

On Opinion: Will CNN’s new ad be effective?

Posted 27 October 2017, 7:31 a.m. Suggest removal

Adeas (Andrew Applegarth) says...

You would say wrong... The truth is that you need the marriage license if you changed your name when you got married as the marriage license will have both the old and new last names, linking the birth certificate to the current driver's license. While this is mostly true for women, not all women change their name when they get married and some men take their wife's last name. In these cases, the woman should not need to take her marriage license while the man in the second case would need to. Also rare is when both partners take on both last names, but both parties would need to take their marriage license in that instance. If they both changed their last name to something entirely different to avoid that fight, good luck getting the new license!

On Letter to the editor: Frustrating rules

Posted 14 October 2017, 2:46 p.m. Suggest removal

Adeas (Andrew Applegarth) says...

Automatic weapons date back at least to the 4th century BC with the Chinese repeating or 'continuous crossbow'. Although different in concept, volley guns date back at least to the 14th century. To say that the founding fathers would have no idea that arms would continue to advance from the musket would be ignorant. After all, the Continental Congress ordered 100 Belton Flintlock repeaters in 1777 (although they cancelled the order when they saw the bill). While automatic weapons were in their infancy and not truly comparable to the ones produced today, it would be asinine to believe that the 2nd Amendment only applies to muskets as there were so many multi-shot arms already in existence. Here is a small sampling:

Belton Flintlock - 16-20 round 'Roman Candle' style repeater <BR>
Puckle Gun - 6-11 shots per swappable cylinder <BR>
Girardoni Air Rifle - 30 shots per swappable air reservoir <BR>
Nock Gun - 7 barrel volley weapon <BR>
Pepper-Box Revolver - 3 or more barrels that rotate to the firing mechanism <BR>
Kalthoff Repeater - separate tubes for powder and ball held 6 - 30 rounds <BR>
Cookson Repeater - drum with separate chambers for powder and ball held 7 shots <BR>

That doesn't even touch on the fact that mortars, howitzers, and cannons (firing solid, exploding, incendiary, or scatter shot) were privately owned arms at the time and thus should be covered by the 2nd Amendment.

Hand Grenades - Yes, hand tossed exploding ordinance. <BR>
Hand Mortar - fused grenade launcher <BR>
Swivel Gun - a cannon small enough to be mounted on a swivel for easy aiming <BR>

On Letter to the editor: Gun definition

Posted 14 October 2017, 2:18 p.m. Suggest removal

Adeas (Andrew Applegarth) says...

A lack of forced merchandizing?

Adeas (Andrew Applegarth) says...

You make a pretty good argument for legal carry for self-defense...

Yes, the threshold for relying solely on the law and police to protect you is for them to be 100% effective in doing so. If they cannot do that, it is necessary to supplement them with personal protection.

Adeas (Andrew Applegarth) says...

"It's legal to buy a bump-stock just as long as you don't misuse it." - No. It's legal to buy it whether you end up misusing it or not. While the misuse may be illegal and being convicted may prevent future purchase/possession, it does not change the legality of the original purchase.

Personally I dislike bump-stocks because of the increased chance of accidental additional discharge. It seems unsafe to me, but not because of the increased fire rate. There are multiple ways to achieve that increased fire rate that do not require modifying the weapon, so banning them to prevent mass shootings is just a feel good measure that achieves nothing.

"In one breath you're saying a stupid sign/law won't protect you, and so you need to carry a gun, but in the same breath telling all of us who don't want people carrying guns all over the place that we are protected by the law and not to worry. Which is it?" - Neither and both. You are twisting what you are being told trying to win the argument dishonestly.

What you are being told is that you don't have to worry about the folks who follow the law (even if they are legally allowed to carry). You are also being told that you do need to worry about the folks who do not follow the law (even if they are not legally allowed to carry). Lawful carry is the best defense against unlawful carry.

Despite your inability (or refusal) to understand that simple concept, it's not a contradiction. What is a contradiction is your misguided belief that people who don't follow the current laws will suddenly start following your new laws...

Adeas (Andrew Applegarth) says...

When will your misrepresenting of the phrase "well regulated" end? Pretending that it means what you want it to doesn't actually make it so.

Further, do you really believe that the founding fathers would chose to utilize a militia instead of letting a government they didn't trust have a standing army and then turn around and just give that government the power to control the militia? How does that make any sense? (HINT: It doesn't and they didn't.)

So, in conclusion, the phrase "well regulated" does NOT mean controlled. It means precise, effective, accurate. It means that the people are sufficiently armed and able to use those arms in time of need.

Adeas (Andrew Applegarth) says...

Yes, it says well regulated. However, despite your best efforts to ignore the truth, "well regulated" does not mean controlled or limited. It actually means pretty much exactly the opposite. It means that the people have the weapons that they will be called upon to use as a member of the militia. It means that the people are using them (for target practice, hunting, self defense, etc) often enough that they don't need to be trained to use them in after being called. When the militia is needed, there is no time for boot camp.

On Editorial: Examining gun violence

Posted 3 October 2017, 6:09 p.m. Suggest removal

Full site